Click for Main Weblog

   
The Weblog at The View from the Core - Thursday, August 12, 2004
   
   

"The Night Before Christmas (Cambodian Version)"

A poem by Russ Vaughn.

Our favorite Screaming Eagle Poet writes to The Blog from the Core again today.

Like the New York Times and the Washington Post, we haven't yet covered John Kerry's 1968 Christmas in Cambodia near Cambodia in the Mekong Delta in Vietnam somewhere. Fortunately, Russ steps up to fill in the gap with a timely commentary in verse.

The Night Before Christmas
Cambodian Version

'Twas the night before Christmas and we were afloat
Somewhere in Cambodia in our little boat.
While the river was lightened by rockets red glare
No one but the President knew we were there.

The crew was all nestled deep down in their bunks,
While the Spook and I watched the sampans and junks.
Our mission was secret, so secret in fact,
No one else would remember it when we got back.

When out on the water there arose such a clatter
I leaped down from the bridge to see what was the matter.
The incoming friendly was starting to flash
And I knew that the ARVN's were having a bash.

The snap of friendly fire on the warm tropic air
Convinced me for sure no one knew we were there,
On a clandestine mission so secret it's true
That I'm still convinced only Tricky Dick knew.

While I huddled for safety in the tub on the bow,
I thought of a title, Apocalypse Now,
To give to the films I was making each day,
To show all the voters when I made my big play.

As I sat there sweating in my lucky flight jacket,
Spook said "Merry Christmas!" and tossed me a packet.
And what to my wondering eyes did appear,
But a new lucky cap, which I still have right here.

I keep it tucked here, in this leather brief case,
Just sharing with the press its secretive place,
As I regale them again with my Senate refrain,
That Christmas in Cambodia is seared into my brain.

Don't bother to quibble with history my friend,
By pointing out Johnson was President then.
Don't listen to Swiftees who try to explain,
For I tell you that night is seared into my brain.

Down Hibbard, down Lonsdale, and you too O'Neill,
So you don't remember? Well it's something I feel.
I don't need all you Swiftvets to support my campaign,
'Cause Christmas in Cambodia is seared into my brain.

Into my brain, into my brain, into my brain....

Russ Vaughn
2d Bn, 327th Parachute Infantry Regiment
101st Airborne Division
Vietnam 65-66

See also these.

P.S. For background, see the InstaPundit: Kerry's Cambodia Story is Changing Again, Nothing on the Kerry/Cambodia Story, and Kerry/Cambodia Update.

Lane Core Jr. CIW P — Thu. 08/12/04 08:36:30 PM
Categorized as John Kerry & Literary.


   
   

What a Relief!

Just when I worry about sounding kooky, I come across this:

1-Important News.- We, hereby, inform all Catholic Faithfuls in the world, and also, those who went away from the Catholic Church by heresy, schism or apostasy, that, on June 29, 1994, feast of the Apostle St. Peter, the first Pope, in the Italian city of Assisi, in the old stone chapel located at the summit of Subasio Mount, where St. Francis could have been born, according to an old tradition, bishops, clergyman and faithful lay people, who came from the most different regions in the world, elected a new successor of St. Peter: Rev. Fr. Victor von Pentz, 41 years old, who belongs to the Byzantine Catholic Rite or Eastern Catholic Rite of St. John Chrysostome, who took the name of Pope LINUS II....

I feel much better now.

(Thanks, Fr. Bryce.)

Lane Core Jr. CIW P — Thu. 08/12/04 06:08:41 PM
Categorized as Religious.


   
   

"Terror in the Skies, Again?" Parts IV & V

They're here and here. All parts are now indexed at the WomensWallStreet homepage. They also have a Letter from the E-ditor™ continually updated with related links.

See also these.

(Thanks, Rod.)

Lane Core Jr. CIW P — Thu. 08/12/04 05:53:21 PM
Categorized as Social/Cultural.


   
   

More on Notre Dame Magazine Featuring Homosexuality

Re: Notre Dame Magazine Features Homosexuality.

See Notre Dame's paean to homosexuality.

Lane Core Jr. CIW P — Thu. 08/12/04 05:34:26 PM
Categorized as Religious.


   
   

Big News — I Mean BIG News — on Saddam's WMD is Coming Down the Road

That's my hunch right now.

First, the New York Times sort-of apologized back in May for not being more critical (yes, you read that right: not being more critical) of the Bush administration before the War Against Saddam Hussein. In case you missed it — O, how could you? ;-) — here's what I thought of that:

.... Why this? Why now? Well, we know this isn't soul searching. And we know it's not intellectual honesty. I mean, it's still the New York Times.
This is, if you'll pardon the expression, a pre-emptive strike. It's designed to provide a fig-leaf of cover when the Times willfully ignores and/or downplays upcoming evidence of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction in or out of Iraq.
Which leads me to wonder, Faithful Reader, if NYT's editors don't have some inside information........

Today, the Washington Post gets into the act:

Days before the Iraq war began, veteran Washington Post reporter Walter Pincus put together a story questioning whether the Bush administration had proof that Saddam Hussein was hiding weapons of mass destruction.
But he ran into resistance from the paper's editors, and his piece ran only after assistant managing editor Bob Woodward, who was researching a book about the drive toward war, "helped sell the story," Pincus recalled. "Without him, it would have had a tough time getting into the paper." Even so, the article was relegated to Page A17.
"We did our job but we didn't do enough, and I blame myself mightily for not pushing harder," Woodward said in an interview. "We should have warned readers we had information that the basis for this was shakier" than widely believed. "Those are exactly the kind of statements that should be published on the front page."
As violence continues in postwar Iraq and U.S. forces have yet to discover any WMDs, some critics say the media, including The Washington Post, failed the country by not reporting more skeptically on President Bush's contentions during the run-up to war....

Yep. I think they know something we don't know, Faithful Reader. And they're not telling us. And they're going to question/impugn/downplay the news whenever it comes out. And they're offering their excuses now, ahead of time.

BTW, if lots of folks know something we don't know yet, it might help to explain why Kerry made the astonishing admission the other day that he would have voted to authorize the president to use military force against Saddam Hussein even if he had known Saddam had no WMD.

P.S. I hope I've not sounded too much like a conspiracy kook here. Especially at the end. Ack.

Lane Core Jr. CIW P — Thu. 08/12/04 08:32:03 AM
Categorized as Media.


   
   

"Legal Terrorism"

Democrats in Self-Destruct Mode CCCLIII

An article by Henry Mark Holzer and Erika Holzer at FrontPage, Aug. 10:

Presidential nominee John Kerry is working overtime to blunt growing criticism of his Vietnam service and simultaneously reassure uncommitted voters that his acts of alleged heroism as a Swift boat officer — over 30 years ago — far outweigh his antiwar history. He has made his medals — a Silver Star, a Bronze Star, and three Purple Hearts — a central focus of his candidacy. He has made a colossal mistake.
No surprise, then, that Swift Boat Veterans For Truth, an organization unaffiliated with any political party — whose members were no strangers to Lieutenant Kerry 30 years ago — last week began airing a dramatic, highly effective TV spot that flatly disputes Kerry’s claims, and, worse for Kerry, his integrity.
Predictably, Kerry’s lawyers responded with a venomous and distorted account of the TV spot and the veterans who had organized it. Marc Elias, Esq., General Counsel for the Kerry-Edwards campaign, joined by Joseph Sandler, General Counsel for the Democratic National Committee, faxed to TV station managers the kind of intimidating message that gives lawyers a bad name....
To their credit, TV stations in some marketplaces have refused to surrender to the bullying tactics of Kerry’s lawyers. This presents the democrat party and the Kerry campaign with two choices: put up or shut up.
They can slink off the field for having threatened TV stations with a baseless libel lawsuit, or, despite how they eventually hedge their threat, they can actually sue those TV stations that aren’t intimidated.
The latter course would be utter disaster — and Kerry’s lawyers have to know this. Kerry would no longer be able to hide behind spin masters. He would have to file a written complaint. Sworn depositions (including Kerry’s) would have to be taken. He would have to respond to requests for factual admissions. He would have to answer written interrogatories. He would have to produce documents.
There would have to be a trial. That means sworn testimony, cross examination, documentary evidence — all in front of a jury, reporters, perhaps even TV cameras.
Once all that happened, America would know who told the truth — and who lied.

See my Lawyers Winning Friends:

.... At the very least, Kedwards will know that their claims won't go unchallenged anymore. And, this thinly-disguised lawsuit-threat might very well backfire on the Democrats.
Besides, wouldn't you just love to see a trial over this? Of course, it would never go to trial: this is just another case of people & their lawyers using the legal system as a weapon.

P.S. See Beldar's fascinating & delightful blog. Here's a choice part:

.... Mr. Baer, when is the last time you had a medical problem that was only treated by one professional, with no support staff? Only a moron would suggest that the existence of one person's signature on a medical record negates the possibility that any others were involved — even more directly involved — in the treatment that was given....

Keep an eye out for the "technical legal terms". :-)

P.P.S. See also this American Spectator article, yesterday (embedded ellipsis in original):

.... On the face of the simple facts recited above, Elias and Sandler may have written the first legal letter in campaign history that actually commits the violations it charges its target with... making "false and libelous charges." ....

Confer my blog already cited:

As I see it, here are Democratic National Committee lawyers committing libel while accusing other people of committing libel....

Lane Core Jr. CIW P — Thu. 08/12/04 07:18:23 AM
Categorized as Democrats in Self-Destruct Mode.


   
   

I Forgot to Remember to Forget

Democrats in Self-Destruct Mode CCCLII

Over at ABC's The Note yesterday, we discover how clueless we must be here at The Blog from the Core.

Today, The Note gets all serious and macro.
It is our most fundamental job to regularly tell you three things:
1. where the presidential race stands
2. that where the race stands now is only a snapshot
3. that things can change
And/but the reality is — as amazing as this seems — this is now John Kerry's contest to lose.
Forget the hemorrhaging of manufacturing jobs (and Team Bush's inability — so far — to enunciate a second-term jobs/growth agenda or find a compelling Rubinesque spokesperson on the economy).
Forget the fact that that we still can't find a single American who voted for Al Gore in 2000 who is planning to vote for George Bush in 2004. (If you are that elusive figure, e-mail us and tell us who you are and why: politicalunit@abcnews.com.) ....

Let's stop right there.

Back in July — five weeks ago and more — OpinionJournal published messages from 17 individuals (only two of whom do not use their full name) who say they voted Gore in 2000 and will vote Bush in 2004.

First, Gore No More, Jul. 1 (emphasis and links in original).

+ + + + +

(Editor's note: These letters came from readers in response to yesterday's Best of the Web Today item, "Landslide Kerry?")

You quote Josh Marshall as saying: "I take it as a given that virtually no Gore voters from 2000 will pull the lever for Bush." What planet is he on? Since 9/11, I can't begin to tell you the number of my friends and family members who have said "I voted for Gore, but thank God George Bush is president!" The Angry Left feels that Iraq has been an unmitigated disaster, but there are plenty of Americans—including plenty of 2000 Gore voters—who feel otherwise.

Besides, having watched news clips of recent Al Gore speeches, I suspect that more than a few Gore voters feel a shiver go down their spines when they think of how close the Tennessee Nut Case came to serving as our commander in chief.

William White


Mr. Marshall is wrong in his assumption that "virtually no Gore voter will pull the lever for Bush." I voted for Gore, and I intend to vote for President Bush this time. It was our president's strong stand against terrorism that swayed my mind.

I still dislike numerous positions of the Republican Party, including its near-constant attack on abortion on demand. But the issue of public safety overrides all others. I suspect Bush will garner quite a few people who normally vote Democratic.

Jean Notestein


Your item on Josh Marshall, particularly his contention that Gore voters won't move to Bush this year, reminded me of this Reason.com thread of a few weeks ago. Tim Cavanaugh predicted a Bush lock, the very first commenter made a point similar to Mr. Marshall's, and more or less the rest of the thread was a few hundred posts of people claiming to have voted for Gore in 2000, and planning to vote for Bush this time around.

I sort of count myself in that group; I am undecided but leaning toward Bush for now. You can take a thread of anonymous posters for whatever it's worth, but Democrats should be very, very careful about taking anything for granted. Turning it around, could anyone possibly have voted for Bush, witnessed Gore's subsequent meltdown and said, boy, I sure wish he were our president? I'm not sure what the case for Kerry (rather than against Bush) is, either.

"Ferncrombie"


I wanted to e-mail the gent who claimed virtually no one who voted for Gore in 2000 will vote for Bush in '04; however, no e-mail address was available for him. Perhaps you might forward my message.

I accompanied my parents as they campaigned for John F. Kennedy; my husband and I went door-to-door for George McGovern; I've lived in major urban centers my entire adult life, haven't had a TV since '75, lived abroad during much of the '80s, speak and write Japanese, have an advanced degree but no children, and produced and hosted a feminist radio show on an NPR affiliate in the '70s, and of course voted for Gore in 2000. All very nice and leftish.

However, I believe George W. Bush is one of our greatest presidents and I will cast my vote for him in November. I can only speak for myself of course, but if a committed lefty like me can change her mind, all I can say is carry an oxygen tank, you might get buried in that landslide you're predicting.

Kelly Colgan Azar


Here's one Gore voter who will vote for Bush. I've met a handful of others like me—self-identified conservatives who don't like Bush's cultural conservatism and felt Gore was the more traditionally conservative of the two. Now we believe that the left, as epitomized by Gore, has gone off the deep end and can't be trusted with the reins of power, especially during wartime.

Actually, my vote for Bush won't be so much for Bush as against Michael Moore and his ilk. I still don't like Bush very much, but I don't trust Kerry to be tough on our enemies, and Moore and the rest of the left-wing nut cases shouldn't be rewarded for their lunacy.

Howard Owens


The confidence of people like Josh Marshall is overextended. He assumes, from the anti-Bush energy on the left, that there is no center remaining to be swayed. Well, maybe he's right—the process of switching is already complete. I'm a Gore voter who's long since moved through the center to the right after 9/11. You'd think a blogger would have noticed a few others of us around the blogosphere.

Mike Gebert


Mr. Marshall may be right that "virtually no Gore voters" will switch sides, but he can't say absolutely no Gore voters will switch, because I voted for Gore and I will most definitely pull the lever for Bush this November. (Although in my district, voting actually involves drawing a line to connect the head and tail of an arrow. It's got an arts-and-crafts feel to it.)

Mr. Marshall makes the mistake of a partisan by assuming that everyone who voted for his candidate did so with the same hard-core, I-drank-the-Kool-Aid-licked-the-punchbowl-and-am-now-sucking-on-the-ice-cubes fervor that he did. I sure didn't. What I remember about the 2000 election was how unenthused most people were about either candidate (kind of like Kerry now). What I remember most about the aftermath of the election was Al Gore and his lawyers trying to disqualify the votes of military personnel stationed overseas because they were likely to be Republican. It's the only vote I cast of which I am now ashamed.

Well, 2000 was so long ago. What does the Democratic Party offer today's voter? Oddly enough, Al Gore, newer, louder, scarier. In the past Gore has made numerous statements about the danger posed by Saddam; now he screeches, "They lied!" when the Bush administration points to the same intelligence reports that Gore used. Well, someone's lying.

Then there's Howard Dean, also screeching (what is it with Democrats and volume control?), "I want my country back!" Do you know how annoying it is to have someone scream that at you? It's my country, too, you little—well, never mind.

Teddy Kennedy stands on the floor of the U.S. Senate and announces that the torture chambers of Saddam have reopened under U.S. management. What a despicable statement, on so many levels. In the first place, it's a lie. What a handful of soldiers did at Abu Ghraib does not approach the horror that Saddam inflicted for 30 years, and Kennedy knows this. He knows it. Secondly, whether you agree with the war or not, we have thousands of Americans serving with courage, honor and distinction, and their accomplishments should not be diminished by the misdeeds of a handful of malcontents or by slander from a United States senator. But, if it gets some votes or hurts Bush, tearing down the morale of those risking their lives simply because we asked it of them seems like a small price to pay.

Then there's John Kerry, who feels that terrorism is a law-enforcement issue. Excuse me, but isn't that the policy that got us 9/11? Wait until some Americans are murdered, arrest some low-level conspirators, and blow up a couple of camels? I'm voting for pre-emption. If you know where the bad guys are, get them before they can do bad things. I just now displayed my lack of nuance, and John Kerry is big on nuance, and nuance is in no way to be confused with flip-flopping, indecisiveness, trying to have it both ways or playing the ends against the middle. People who hack off other people's heads are not evil. They're misguided, confused, the product of a bad environment, or justifiably distressed by the Burger King being built where the falafel stand used to be. It could be a multicultural thing.

Kerry's also big on the U.N. You know, the organization that opposed freedom for Iraqis while running a corrupt Oil for Food program that they are now covering up while making a hash of Kosovo and supplying peacekeepers who murder our peacekeepers and who demand sex for food from already brutalized refugees? Sure, let's turn things over to them.

What else are the Democrats offering the would-be voter? Oh, yeah. Michael Moore, the controversial mockumentary filmmaker. After 9/11, Moore posted on his Web site that he couldn't understand why the terrorists killed people in largely Democratic states that went for Gore. Apparently, if 3,000 people had been murdered in largely Republican states, Moore would have been OK with that. Also, he seems to think that Osama bin Laden was upset that we don't have national health care or government-funded preschool. What Moore and the Democrats have in common is their contempt for the American people. When Moore isn't making money here with his mockumentaries, he's in Europe making money by telling the Europeans how stupid we Americans are because we don't have passports and when we meet people, we smile and say, "Hi, how ya doin'?" For their part, the Democrats have endorsed Moore's movie even though they know we didn't go into Afghanistan for a pipeline or Iraq for Halliburton, but if you can sell it to those stupid Americans, it might get some votes.

There are many other issues behind my vote this November, but as things stand now, it's Democrats minus one, Bush plus one. That's a two-vote swing.

Laura Bangs


I am a 52-year-old New Yorker who has never missed voting in a major election. I have never voted for a Republican and voted for Gore in 2000. I am an agnostic, but nonetheless, after 9/11, I thank God that Bush won. My wife has never voted for a Republican either. We live in the liberal state of New York, with roots in the liberal elite. I am a psychiatrist who read the New York Times every day until I canceled my subscription one year ago. The fact-checking and real reporting by parts of the blogosphere were instrumental in helping me make the break; the accretion of distortions that the liberal media consider "news" finally tipped me after Jayson Blair, but I was heading in that direction for several years in any event.

I also have two voting-age children. My son recently enlisted in the U.S. Air Force, to the horror of innumerable (former) friends and associates, and my daughter is in a liberal arts college in New York. My son is a confirmed Bush supporter; my daughter wavers only because she finds the right of a woman to have an abortion (in our house we generally support a woman's right to choose, first trimester: definitely, second: probably, third: only in very exceptional circumstances) to be vital and worries about pro-lifers on the Supreme Court taking that right away. Despite that, she is leaning toward Bush because she thinks the War on Islamofascism, of which Iraq is only one front, is the crucial issue facing our country.

Just thought you should know that two former Democratic voters, plus two voters who all precedents would suggest would be Democratic voters, are going to be voting for George W. in the fall. I might add that I find many people who tell me they agree with me on this, though they tend to whisper it since deviating from the liberal, mainstream-media party line is dangerous around here. I have actually heard from one patient, a psychologist herself, that her friends tell her they could never see a therapist who is a Republican.

Personally, I am hoping for a landslide Republican victory, since I think it is the only thing that can save the Democratic Party from its lunatic fringe (just as the Goldwater debacle ultimately saved the Republican Party). When and if the Dems grow up and refind "reason," I will reconsider voting for them.

Perry Branson

+ + + + +

Second, Gore No More—II, Jul 2 (emphasis and links in original).

+ + + + +

(Editor's note: These letters came from readers in response to Wednesday's Best of the Web Today item, "Landslide Kerry?," and yesterday's follow-up.)

Please include me in your group of former Gore supporters now planning to vote for Bush. In 2000, Gore was the former senator with the long record of having been fiscally conservative, strong on defense and environmentally responsible, while generally supporting a woman's right to choose, and being quite the intellectual. I felt then, and feel now, that the Supreme Court decision that put him in office was a travesty of justice—that the intentions of the voters in Florida were ultimately ignored, to the peril of the Constitution.

That being said, Bush's weakness—his intellectual simplicity—became a strength on September 11. Unlike Gore, he is not so distracted by the trees so as not to see the forest of good and evil. His clearheaded stance on terrorism, Islam, the U.N. and Israel is a breath of fresh air. I do believe that his positions on the environment, energy, taxes, abortion and other domestic issues are not ideal, but I also believe that events have occurred that relegate these issues to the back burner. And the bulk of the Democratic Party has completely failed to take national security seriously (with Joe Leiberman being a notable exception, bless his soul). And so I, and my entire family of Gore supporters, will now be voting for Bush. True, living in New York our votes don't really count, but we'll be voting nonetheless.

Jonathan Weinberg


Although currently undecided, I may vote for (and, as a moderate, usually defend) Bush, whereas last time I voted for Gore. Gore (circa 2000) seemed more rooted in reality, and Bush's change-of-heart from an isolationist free-trader to a hawkish protectionist seems to indicate that Gore 2000 is actually closer to Bush 2004 than either is to Bush 2000, to Gore 2004 or to Kerry 2004.

Michael Baer


Don't forget the Roe Effect. The Roe Effect is accelerating. I have three new presidential election voters in my family this year (18 to 21), and all of them, I'm sure, will vote and vote for Bush.

Craig Shelley


I work with three 2000 Gore voters here in Florida who will almost certainly be voting for President Bush this year. One guy explicitly stated that he changed his mind when Bush made a personal appearance here at our company. There's something about his personality that turned him around. I'm ashamed to admit, I voted for Harry Browne in 2000, but the president will have my vote as well.

Bob White


First, as you point out, Gore himself is turning many, or at least a significant number, of his voters off. It defies logic that the Dems can marshal the same level of voter turnout this year. Two thousand was a high-water mark, and with Gore alienating his supporters and blacks not really on board with Kerry, Bush only needs a few percentage points to seal the deal. When you have 90% of blacks, the only direction is down.

Second, on polls about job approval: If a pollster called me, I'd tell him that I disapprove of Bush's performance. I'm one of those appalled conservatives who think Paul Bremer was too much the bureaucrat and are morose about federal spending, and I'm an especially morose Pennsylvanian still smarting about Bush and Sen. Rick Santorum's over-the-top support for Sen. Arlen Specter. But if the pollster asks who I'm voting for, it's Bush all the way. I'm not alone.

Dan Herchenroether


You said that you've gotten anecdotal evidence that at least some Gore supporters from 2000 would be pulling the other lever this fall. Well, add me to the pile, brother.

I turned 18 in 1990. I voted for Clinton twice, then Gore in 2000. (I stayed awake through high school civics, however, so I wasn't among those whining about the outcome of that election.) Then 9/11 happened, and the leadership of the Democratic Party, in my opinion, tried to act like the world hadn't changed suddenly and drastically. The president won some of my support with his speech to the joint session of Congress, then more with his speech to the U.N. General Assembly, then more when he acted decisively against Afghanistan, then still more when he was equally decisive about Iraq. (I wish he hadn't wasted quite so much time at the U.N., but what the hey.)

In November, I'll be voting to re-elect. I don't know if there are enough of us to make a difference, but I imagine there are at least a few of us "9/11 Democrats" out there who are just itching to get our hands on a ballot.

Jeff Harrell


If Ohio is the battleground state, and Canton is the heart of it all, then I live on its valve and my wife's family is in a main chamber. In the '90s, she voted for Clinton, twice. I voted Perot, then a write-in for Nader, (pre-Green party, thank you). For Bush/Gore, we split the vote —one for Bush, one for Nader. (It wasn't personal with Al, it was more about how weak he was and how overbearing his wife and daughters are.) This time, both votes go for Bush. The same with our entire families. The only holdout is her dad, a lifelong Democratic city councilman, but like most of the Canton/Massillon area, he won't talk about Kerry as a viable choice.

Not sure if you know this, but the senator's fly-through in Massillon the other week got little local coverage. The reason? Lower-than-expected turnout. He pulled over 1,000 in Akron a few months ago. Now he grabbed under 500.

Martin Sarafian


I shudder to think what our national security situation would be if the man I voted for had become president. Seeing George Bush win the last election made me quite upset, but he has proved himself to be a shrewd and strong leader in a time of great uncertainty. I wholeheartedly support President Bush and I intend to vote for him this November.

Mary Ellen Lewis


Saw the posts and the mention of the Gore voters who are planning to vote for Bush in November. My site is specifically focused on those voters, because that's me too: longtime Democrat, Dukakis voter (Clinton and Gore too), who's 100% dedicated to getting Bush re-elected. Call me a "9/11 Democrat," or a "liberal who's been mugged," or whatever, but there you have it.

"John S"

+ + + + +

Serious and macro? A phrase to remember.

See also An Interlude of Breathtaking Honesty.

The Blog from the Core asserts Fair Use for non-commercial, non-profit educational purposes.

P.S. I sent an e-mail to ABC with links to the OpinionJournal pages. I'm sure I'm not the only one.

[Follow-up: Re: I Forgot to Remember to Forget.]

Lane Core Jr. CIW P — Thu. 08/12/04 06:40:07 AM
Categorized as Democrats in Self-Destruct Mode.


   

The Blog from the Core © 2002-2008 E. L. Core. All rights reserved.